stephan huller's observations: Adversus Marcionem IV.35 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His Redacted Luke

Passage Unit (IV..)	Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke)	Structural / Irenaean Method Signals	Redaction & Dependence Assessment
IV.35.1–3	Recognition formula: Christ as judge; identity through continuity (“agnosce… idem sensus eiusdem est”)	Identity-by-action logic typical of Irenaeus (same intention → same God); internal refutation using retained text	Strong indicator of inherited anti-Marcion argumentative template emphasizing theological identity through continuity
IV.35.4–6	Correction of brother / discipline teachings tied to Mosaic law	Law → Gospel continuity chain; Christ’s sayings interpreted as presupposing Torah	Reads like structured exegetical unit rather than spontaneous rhetoric; possible pre-existing dossier material
IV.35.7–9	Legal precedents (Leviticus, livestock law, forgiveness structures) linked to Christ’s commands	Sequential law-parallel argument; salvation-history continuity framework	Highly schematic reasoning suggests earlier exegetical scaffolding reused by Tertullian
IV.35.10–13	Leper healing discussion and interpretive rebuttal	Engagement with assumed Marcionite objection; structured casuistic parsing	Tone resembles commentary responding to known interpretive tradition; possible inherited refutation notes
IV.35.14–17	Naaman/Israel typology and prophetic precedent	Salvation-history pedagogy; prophetic prefiguration explaining Gospel action	Strong Irenaean recapitulation model (Israel failure → prophetic pattern → Christ fulfillment)
IV.35.18–22	Christ as authentic interpreter (“authenticus pontifex”) revealing hidden law meaning	Typological hermeneutic; law contains concealed Christological meaning	Alignment with Irenaean Logos/fulfillment framework; suggests conceptual inheritance
IV.35.23–28	Samaritan historical excursus	Extensive historical-theological reconstruction; unity of revelation stream	Degree of historical exposition exceeds polemical necessity → likely drawn from earlier structured commentary
IV.35.29–32	“Kingdom within you” linked to Deuteronomy (“prope te est verbum”)	Mosaic grounding of Gospel saying; internal textual continuity method	Classic Irenaean internal-refutation technique (Luke presupposes Torah)
IV.35.33–end	Son of Man eschatology aligned with Noah/Lot judgments	Typological eschatology linking OT judgment narratives to Christ	Standard anti-Marcion Creator-judge logic executed in structured template form

Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.35 — strongest Latin correspondences at the outset

Tertullian: “Qui tetigerit vos, ac si pupillam oculi mei tangat … Peccantem fratrem iubet corripi … veniam des fratri … etiam septies … Ite, ostendite vos sacerdotibus … ex Iudaeis salus … lapis quem reprobaverunt aedificantes”
Irenaeus: “Unde et Marcion … secundum Lucam Evangelium et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes … Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos …” (AH III); cf. Irenaean themes: Creator as judge and protector; correction of brethren; unity of Law and Gospel; Christ fulfilling prophetic types; continuity of Israel and Church (AH IV–V).

Methodological parallels (Irenaean framework)

The dominant methodological feature is refutation drawn from the opponent’s own Gospel material — precisely the program announced by Irenaeus in AH III. Tertullian proceeds by accepting Marcion’s Lukan passages (scandal warning, forgiveness teaching, lepers, kingdom sayings) and arguing that their internal logic presupposes the Creator. This matches the Irenaean method in multiple locations:

Irenaeus frequently argues that heretics unknowingly preserve authentic testimony that refutes their system; he insists that Scripture itself, when read sequentially and canonically, exposes doctrinal innovation. The emphasis on Luke’s sayings interpreted against Marcion’s theology parallels Irenaeus’s insistence that the Marcionites retain Luke/Paul yet mutilate them; the refutation is therefore internal rather than external.

The appeal to Creator-language embedded in dominical sayings (“pupilla oculi,” prophetic judgments, Law citations) reproduces Irenaeus’s technique of demonstrating continuity between prophetic texts and Christ’s teaching rather than introducing new authorities.

Structural correspondences

The chapter’s argumentative sequence reflects a recognizably Irenaean pattern:

Monotheism and divine identity: Christ’s warnings and judgments are read as expressions of the Creator’s character (judge of scandals, protector of disciples). Irenaeus repeatedly structures arguments by first securing the identity of the Creator as the sole God before moving to Christology.

Christology as fulfillment: sayings about correction, forgiveness, leprosy healing, and Samaritan inclusion are interpreted as Christ’s fulfillment of Mosaic and prophetic precedents. This mirrors Irenaeus’s habit of reading Gospel episodes through typological continuity (Law → Prophets → Christ).

Sequential Gospel exegesis: the argument unfolds as commentary on successive dominical pericopes rather than as independent doctrinal essays. This pericope-by-pericope movement resembles the exegetical scaffolding seen throughout Irenaeus when he moves linearly through scriptural passages to demonstrate coherence.

Historical polemic parallels

Marcion is again framed as a posterior innovator who truncates received texts — directly echoing Irenaeus’s charge that Marcion “decurtantes” Luke and Paul. Tertullian’s insistence that Christ’s sayings presuppose Jewish Scripture and temple structures mirrors Irenaeus’s appeal to ecclesial continuity and apostolic tradition against innovators.

The argument that the Samaritan healing episode confirms Jerusalem as the cultic center (“ex Iudaeis salus,” priests, temple authority) reflects Irenaeus’s recurring polemic: authentic Christianity grows organically from Israel’s covenantal history rather than replacing it with a new deity.

Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding

Several features suggest dependence on earlier anti-Marcionite exegesis rather than purely Tertullianic rhetoric:

The consistent dominical-logia style: each saying of Jesus is tied to prophetic or Mosaic precedent, forming short scholia that could easily belong to a harmony-based commentary.

Use of typological chains (Naaman → lepers → priestly inspection → authentic high priest) resembles Irenaeus’s typological argumentation where Old Testament episodes function as interpretive keys to Gospel passages.

Repetitive formulae asserting identity between Christ’s teaching and the Creator’s Law indicate an inherited argumentative matrix rather than ad hoc invention.

The linkage of correction of a brother, forgiveness, and prophetic authority into a unified ethical theology aligns with Irenaeus’s synthesis of moral teaching and doctrinal continuity across covenants.

Condensed assessment

Adv. Marc. IV.35 strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the internal refutation from Marcion’s retained Luke, sequential pericope exegesis, typological linkage to the Law and Prophets, and presentation of Marcion as mutilator of inherited Scripture collectively reproduce the methodological program explicitly announced by Irenaeus and characteristic of his anti-heretical exegetical style.